Impact of a Collective Intelligence Tailored Messaging System on Smoking Cessation: The Perspect Randomized Experiment

Rajani Shankar Sadasivam, Erin M Borglund, Roy Adams, Benjamin M Marlin, Thomas K Houston, Rajani Shankar Sadasivam, Erin M Borglund, Roy Adams, Benjamin M Marlin, Thomas K Houston

Abstract

Background: Outside health care, content tailoring is driven algorithmically using machine learning compared to the rule-based approach used in current implementations of computer-tailored health communication (CTHC) systems. A special class of machine learning systems ("recommender systems") are used to select messages by combining the collective intelligence of their users (ie, the observed and inferred preferences of users as they interact with the system) and their user profiles. However, this approach has not been adequately tested for CTHC.

Objective: Our aim was to compare, in a randomized experiment, a standard, evidence-based, rule-based CTHC (standard CTHC) to a novel machine learning CTHC: Patient Experience Recommender System for Persuasive Communication Tailoring (PERSPeCT). We hypothesized that PERSPeCT will select messages of higher influence than our standard CTHC system. This standard CTHC was proven effective in motivating smoking cessation in a prior randomized trial of 900 smokers (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.03-2.81).

Methods: PERSPeCT is an innovative hybrid machine learning recommender system that selects and sends motivational messages using algorithms that learn from message ratings from 846 previous participants (explicit feedback), and the prior explicit ratings of each individual participant. Current smokers (N=120) aged 18 years or older, English speaking, with Internet access were eligible to participate. These smokers were randomized to receive either PERSPeCT (intervention, n=74) or standard CTHC tailored messages (n=46). The study was conducted between October 2014 and January 2015. By randomization, we compared daily message ratings (mean of smoker ratings each day). At 30 days, we assessed the intervention's perceived influence, 30-day cessation, and changes in readiness to quit from baseline.

Results: The proportion of days when smokers agreed/strongly agreed (daily rating ≥4) that the messages influenced them to quit was significantly higher for PERSPeCT (73%, 23/30) than standard CTHC (44%, 14/30, P=.02). Among less educated smokers (n=49), this difference was even more pronounced for days strongly agree (intervention: 77%, 23/30; comparison: 23%, 7/30, P<.001). There was no significant difference in the frequency which PERSPeCT randomized smokers agreed or strongly agreed that the intervention influenced them to quit smoking (P=.07) and use nicotine replacement therapy (P=.09). Among those who completed follow-up, 36% (20/55) of PERSPeCT smokers and 32% (11/34) of the standard CTHC group stopped smoking for one day or longer (P=.70).

Conclusions: Compared to standard CTHC with proven effectiveness, PERSPeCT outperformed in terms of influence ratings and resulted in similar cessation rates.

Clinicaltrial: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02200432; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02200432 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6lEJY1KEd).

Keywords: computer tailoring; health communication; recommender system; smoking cessation.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr Sadasivam and Houston have a patent (14/055098) pending for the technology-assisted tobacco intervention. The other authors reported no conflict.

©Rajani Shankar Sadasivam, Erin M Borglund, Roy Adams, Benjamin M Marlin, Thomas K Houston. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 08.11.2016.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The Patient Experience Recommender System for Persuasive Communication Tailoring (PERSPeCT) recommender computer-tailored health communication system.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) participant flow diagram.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean daily ratings: intervention versus comparison.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Baseline and follow-up readiness to quit status in percentages: PERSPeCT intervention (n=74) versus standard computer-tailored health communication comparison (n=46).

References

    1. Kreuter M. Tailoring Health Messages: Customizing Communication with Computer Technology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
    1. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Velicer WF, Rossi JS. Standardized, individualized, interactive, and personalized self-help programs for smoking cessation. Health Psychol. 1993 Sep;12(5):399–405.
    1. Campbell MK, DeVellis BM, Strecher VJ, Ammerman AS, DeVellis RF, Sandler RS. Improving dietary behavior: the effectiveness of tailored messages in primary care settings. Am J Public Health. 1994 May;84(5):783–787.
    1. Brug J, Steenhuis I, van Assema AP, de Vries H. The impact of a computer-tailored nutrition intervention. Prev Med. 1996;25(3):236–242. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1996.0052.
    1. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ. Do tailored behavior change messages enhance the effectiveness of health risk appraisal? Results from a randomized trial. Health Educ Res. 1996 Mar;11(1):97–105.
    1. Marcus BH, Emmons KM, Simkin-Silverman LR, Linnan LA, Taylor ER, Bock BC, Roberts MB, Rossi JS, Abrams DB. Evaluation of motivationally tailored vs. standard self-help physical activity interventions at the workplace. Am J Health Promot. 1998;12(4):246–253.
    1. Bull FC, Kreuter MW, Scharff DP. Effects of tailored, personalized and general health messages on physical activity. Patient Educ Couns. 1999 Feb;36(2):181–192.
    1. Strecher VJ, McClure JB, Alexander GL, Chakraborty B, Nair VN, Konkel JM, Greene SM, Collins LM, Carlier CC, Wiese CJ, Little RJ, Pomerleau CS, Pomerleau OF. Web-based smoking-cessation programs: results of a randomized trial. Am J Prev Med. 2008 May;34(5):373–381. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.024.
    1. Civljak M, Sheikh A, Stead LF, Car J. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(9):CD007078. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007078.pub3.
    1. Houston TK, Sadasivam RS, Allison JJ, Ash AS, Ray MN, English TM, Hogan TP, Ford DE. Evaluating the QUIT-PRIMO clinical practice ePortal to increase smoker engagement with online cessation interventions: a national hybrid type 2 implementation study. Implement Sci. 2015;10:154. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0336-8.
    1. Sadasivam RS, Cutrona SL, Kinney RL, Marlin BM, Mazor KM, Lemon SC, Houston TK. Collective-intelligence recommender systems: advancing computer tailoring for health behavior change into the 21st century. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(3):e42. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4448.
    1. Segaran T. Programming Collective Intelligence: Building Smart Web 2. 0 Applications. Sebastapol, CA: O'Reilly; 2007.
    1. Konstan J, Riedl J. [2016-08-08]. Deconstructing recommender systems. IEEE Spectrum. 2012 Sep 24. .
    1. Vanderbilt T. [2016-08-08]. The science behind the Netflix algorithms that decide what you’ll watch next. Wired. 2013 Aug.
    1. Marlin BM, Adams RJ, Sadasivam R, Houston TK. Towards collaborative filtering recommender systems for tailored health communications. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2013;2013:1600–1607.
    1. Adams RJ, Sadasivam RS, Balakrishnan K, Kinney RL, Houston TK, Marlin BM. PERSPeCT: collaborative filtering for tailored health communications. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems; RecSys '14; Oct 6-10, 2014; Foster City, CA. 2014. pp. 329–332.
    1. Coley HL, Sadasivam RS, Williams JH, Volkman JE, Schoenberger Y, Kohler CL, Sobko H, Ray MN, Allison JJ, Ford DE, Gilbert GH, Houston TK, National Dental PBRNQUITPRIMO Collaborative Group Crowdsourced peer- versus expert-written smoking-cessation messages. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Nov;45(5):543–550. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.07.004.
    1. Fiore MC, Jaén CR, Baker TB. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service; 2008. .
    1. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
    1. Belkin NJ, Croft WB. Information filtering and information retrieval: two sides of the same coin? Commun ACM. 1992;35(12):29–38. doi: 10.1145/138859.138861.
    1. Goldberg D, Nichols D, Oki BM, Terry D. Using collaborative filtering to weave an information tapestry. Commun ACM. 1992;35(12):61–70. doi: 10.1145/138859.138867.
    1. Melville P, Mooney RJ, Nagarajan R. Content-boosted collaborative filtering for improved recommendations. Eighteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence; Jul 28-Aug 1, 2002; Edmonton, AB.. pp. 187–192.
    1. National Information Standards Organization . Understanding Metadata. Bethesda, MD: National Information Standards Organization; 2004. .
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . Making Health Communication Programs Work. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service; .
    1. Cherrington A, Williams JH, Foster PP, Coley HL, Kohler C, Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Volkman JE, Houston TK. Narratives to enhance smoking cessation interventions among African-American smokers, the ACCE project. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8:567. doi: 10.1186/s13104-015-1513-1.
    1. Kimmelman J. A theoretical framework for early human studies: uncertainty, intervention ensembles, and boundaries. Trials. 2012;13:173. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-173.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey questionnaire. 2002. .
    1. DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO, Fairhurst SK, Velicer WF, Velasquez MM, Rossi JS. The process of smoking cessation: an analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991 Apr;59(2):295–304.
    1. An LC, Perry CL, Lein EB, Klatt C, Farley DM, Bliss RL, Hennrikus DJ, Pallonen UE, Lando HA, Ahluwalia JS, Ehlinger EP. Strategies for increasing adherence to an online smoking cessation intervention for college students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2006 Dec;8 Suppl 1:S7–S12.
    1. Christensen H, Griffiths KM, Farrer L. Adherence in Internet interventions for anxiety and depression. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(2):e13. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1194.
    1. Neve MJ, Collins CE, Morgan PJ. Dropout, nonusage attrition, and pretreatment predictors of nonusage attrition in a commercial Web-based weight loss program. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(4):e69. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1640.
    1. Postel MG, de Haan HA, ter Huurne ED, van der Palen J, Becker ES, de Jong CA. Attrition in web-based treatment for problem drinkers. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(4):e117. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1811.
    1. Richardson A, Graham AL, Cobb N, Xiao H, Mushro A, Abrams D, Vallone D. Engagement promotes abstinence in a web-based cessation intervention: cohort study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(1):e14. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2277.
    1. Sadasivam RS, Kinney RL, Delaughter K, Rao SR, Williams JH, Coley HL, Ray MN, Gilbert GH, Allison JJ, Ford DE, Houston TK, National Dental PBRN Group. QUIT-PRIMO Collaborative Group Who participates in Web-assisted tobacco interventions? The QUIT-PRIMO and National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Hi-Quit studies. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(5):e77. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2385.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera